Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/1281100.1281120acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Refined quorum systems

Published: 12 August 2007 Publication History

Abstract

It is considered good distributed computing practice to devise object implementations that tolerate contention, periods of asynchrony and a large number of failures, but perform fast if few failures occur, the system is synchronous and there is no contention. This paper initiates the first study of quorum systems that help design such implementations by encompassing, at the same time, optimal resilience (just like traditional quorum systems), as well as optimal best-case complexity (unlike traditional quorum systems).
We introduce the notion of a refined quorum system (RQS) of some set S as a set of three classes of subsets (quorums) of S: firstclass quorums are also second class quorums, themselves being also third class quorums. First class quorums have large intersections with all other quorums, second class quorums typically have smaller intersections with those of the third class, the latter simply correspond to traditional quorums. Intuitively, under uncontended and synchronous conditions, a distributed object implementation would expedite an operation if a quorum of the first class is accessed, then degrade gracefully depending on whether a quorum of the second or the third class is accessed. Our notion of refined quorum system is devised assuming a general adversary structure, and this basically allows relying on refined quorum systems to relax the assumption of independent process failures, often questioned in practice.
We illustrate the power of refined quorums by introducing two new optimal Byzantine-resilient distributed object implementations: anatomic storage and a consensus algorithm. Both match previously established resilience and best-case complexity lower bounds, closing open gaps, as well as new complexity bounds we establish here.

References

[1]
M. Abd-El-Malek, G. R. Ganger, G. R. Goodson, M. K. Reiter, and J. J. Wylie. Fault-scalable byzantine fault-tolerant services. In SOSP '05: Proceedings of the twentieth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles, pages 59--74, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
[2]
I. Abraham, G. V. Chockler, I. Keidar, and D. Malkhi. Byzantine disk paxos: optimal resilience with Byzantine shared memory. Distributed Computing, 18(5):387--408, 2006.
[3]
H. Attiya, A. Bar-Noy, and D. Dolev. Sharing memory robustly in message-passing systems. Journal of the ACM, 42(1):124--142, 1995.
[4]
J. Black, S. Halevi, H. Krawczyk, T. Krovetz, and P. Rogaway. UMAC: Fast and secure message authentication. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1666:216--233, 1999.
[5]
M. Castro and B. Liskov. Practical byzantine fault tolerance. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, New Orleans, USA, February 1999.
[6]
T. D. Chandra and Sam Toueg. Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. Journal of the ACM, 43(2):225--267, March 1996.
[7]
G. Chockler, R. Guerraoui, and I. Keidar. On the space requirements of robust storage implementations. In Dagstuhl Seminar From Security to Dependability, September 2006.
[8]
J. Cowling, D. Myers, B. Liskov, R. Rodrigues, and L. Shrira. HQ replication: A hybrid quorum protocol for Byzantine fault tolerance. In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementations, Seattle, Washington, November 2006.
[9]
P. Dutta, R. Guerraoui, and M. VukoliĆ. Best-case complexity of asynchronous Byzantine consensus. Technical Report 200499, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), School of Computer and Communication Sciences, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2005.
[10]
C. Dwork, N. Lynch, and L. Stockmeyer. Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony. Journal of the ACM, 35(2):288--323, April 1988.
[11]
M. J. Fischer, N. A. Lynch, and M. S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM, 32(2):374--382, April 1985.
[12]
D. K. Gifford. Weighted voting for replicated data. In SOSP '79: Proceedings of the seventh ACM symposium on Operating systems principles, pages 150--162, New York, NY, USA, 1979. ACM Press.
[13]
D. Golovin, A. Gupta, B. M. Maggs, F. Oprea, and M. K. Reiter. Quorum placement in networks: Minimizing network congestion. In PODC '06: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pages 16--25, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press.
[14]
G. R. Goodson, J. J.Wylie, G. R. Ganger, and M. K. Reiter. Efficient Byzantine-tolerant erasure-coded storage. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, p. 135--144, 2004.
[15]
R. Guerraoui, R. R. Levy, and M. Vukolić. Lucky read/write access to robust atomic storage. In DSN '06: Proceedings of the International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN'06), pages 125--136, Washington, DC, USA, 2006. IEEE Computer Society.
[16]
R. Guerraoui and M. Vukolić. How Fast Can a Very Robust Read Be? In 25th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC'06), 2006.
[17]
R. Guerraoui and M. Vukolić. Refined quorum systems. Technical Report LPD-REPORT-2007-002, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), School of Computer and Communication Sciences, Lausanne, Switzerland, February 2007.
[18]
M. Herlihy. Wait-free synchronization. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):124--149, January 1991.
[19]
M. Herlihy and J. Wing. Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 12(3):463--492, July 1990.
[20]
M. Hirt and U. Maurer. Complete characterization of adversaries tolerable in secure multi-party computation (extended abstract). In PODC '97: Proceedings of the sixteenth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pages 25--34, New York, NY, USA, 1997. ACM Press.
[21]
P. Jayanti, T. D. Chandra, and S. Toueg. Fault-tolerant wait-free shared objects. Journal of the ACM, 45(3):451--500, 1998.
[22]
F. P. Junqueira, K. Marzullo. Synchronous Consensus for Dependent Process Failures. In Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS'03), pages 274--283, Providence, RI, USA, May 2003.
[23]
L. Lamport. On interprocess communication. Distributed computing, 1(1):77--101, May 1986.
[24]
L. Lamport. The part-time parliament. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 16(2):133--169, 1998.
[25]
L. Lamport. Lower bounds for asynchronous consensus. In Future Directions in Distributed Computing, Springer Verlag (LNCS), pages 22--23, 2003.
[26]
L. Lamport. Fast Paxos. Distributed Computing, 19(2):79--103, 2006.
[27]
L. Lamport, R. Shostak, and M. Pease. The Byzantine generals problem. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 4(3):382--401, July 1982.
[28]
N. A. Lynch and M. R.Tuttle. An introduction to I/O automata. CWI Quarterly, 2(3):219--246, 1989.
[29]
D. Malkhi and M. Reiter. Byzantine quorum systems. Distributed Computing, 11(4):203--213, 1998.
[30]
J.-P. Martin and L. Alvisi. Fast Byzantine consensus. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 3(3):202--215, 2006.
[31]
J.-P. Martin, L. Alvisi, and M. Dahlin. Minimal Byzantine storage. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Distributed Computing, pages 311--325. Springer-Verlag, 2002.
[32]
M. Naor and A. Wool. The load, capacity and availability of quorum systems. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 214--225, 1994.
[33]
M. Pease, R. Shostak, and L. Lamport. Reaching agreements in the presence of faults. Journal of the ACM, 27(2):228--234, April 1980.
[34]
H. V. Ramasamy and C. Cachin. Parsimonious asynchronous byzantine-fault-tolerant atomic broadcast. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS 2005), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 88--102, December 2005.
[35]
R. L. Rivest, A. Shamir, and L. M. Adleman. A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. Communications of the ACM, 21(2):120--126, 1978.
[36]
Y. Saito, S. Frolund, A. Veitch, A. Merchant, and S. Spence. Fab: building distributed enterprise disk arrays from commodity components. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev., 38(5):48--58, 2004.
[37]
R. H. Thomas. A majority consensus approach to concurrency control for multiple copy databases. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 4(2):180--209, 1979.
[38]
J. Yin, J.-P. Martin, A. Venkataramani, L. Alvisi, and M. Dahlin. Separating agreement from execution for Byzantine fault tolerant services. In SOSP '03: Proceedings of the nineteenth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles, pages 253--267, New York, NY, USA, 2003.
[39]
P. ZieliƊski. Optimistically terminating consensus. Technical Report UCAM-CL-TR-668, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK, June 2006.

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Fast Flexible Paxos: Relaxing Quorum Intersection for Fast PaxosProceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking10.1145/3427796.3427815(186-190)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2021
  • (2019)Emulating a Shared Register in a System That Never Stops ChangingIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems10.1109/TPDS.2018.286747930:3(544-559)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2019
  • (2017)Probabilistically-Atomic 2-AtomicityIEEE Transactions on Computers10.1109/TC.2016.260132266:3(502-514)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2017
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
PODC '07: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
August 2007
424 pages
ISBN:9781595936165
DOI:10.1145/1281100
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 12 August 2007

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. arbitrary failures
  2. complexity
  3. consensus
  4. quorums
  5. shared-memory emulations

Qualifiers

  • Article

Conference

PODC07

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 740 of 2,477 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)10
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 21 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Fast Flexible Paxos: Relaxing Quorum Intersection for Fast PaxosProceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking10.1145/3427796.3427815(186-190)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2021
  • (2019)Emulating a Shared Register in a System That Never Stops ChangingIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems10.1109/TPDS.2018.286747930:3(544-559)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2019
  • (2017)Probabilistically-Atomic 2-AtomicityIEEE Transactions on Computers10.1109/TC.2016.260132266:3(502-514)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2017
  • (2015)Simulating a Shared Register in an Asynchronous System that Never Stops ChangingProceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Distributed Computing - Volume 936310.1007/978-3-662-48653-5_6(75-91)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2015
  • (2011)The complexity of robust atomic storageProceedings of the 30th annual ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS symposium on Principles of distributed computing10.1145/1993806.1993816(59-68)Online publication date: 6-Jun-2011
  • (2010)Selected results from the latest decade of quorum systems researchReplication10.5555/2172338.2172348(185-206)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2010
  • (2010)Threshold protocols in survivor set systemsDistributed Computing10.1007/s00446-010-0107-323:2(135-149)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2010
  • (2010)Refined quorum systemsDistributed Computing10.1007/s00446-010-0103-723:1(1-42)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2010
  • (2010)Selected Results from the Latest Decade of Quorum Systems ResearchReplication10.1007/978-3-642-11294-2_10(185-206)Online publication date: 2010
  • (2009)Reliable Distributed StorageComputer10.1109/MC.2009.12642:4(60-67)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2009
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media